> Yeah, you did in arguing that just because some Murders happen doesn't negate the utility of a law
OK. Your claim was that I equivocated DRM and murders. So, given what you are saying here, that would mean that I have said something to the effect that "just because some DRM happens, doesn't negate the utility of (copyright?) law"? Could you please provide a citation of where I said that?
See, I would be happy to discuss your actual arguments, but I won't even try if you insist on strawmanning my position.
Also, if you want this discussion to go anywhere, I expect that you refrain from derailing it by insisting on discussing form over content. If you understand an analogy, I expect you to discuss based on what you understood, instead of starting a discussion on how I should have expressed my argument to make you like its form better. I write what I write in order to be understood. Analogies aren't perfect, that's what makes them analogies. The point of an analogy is to show commonalities, despite all differences. If you understand an analogy, it has served its purpose, and any argument as to how I should have expressed myself instead therefore is completely pointless and only serves to derail the discussion. If you actually don't understand what I mean to say, ask, and I'll be happy to try and explain. If you disagree with the content, explain why you disagree with the content.
OK. Your claim was that I equivocated DRM and murders. So, given what you are saying here, that would mean that I have said something to the effect that "just because some DRM happens, doesn't negate the utility of (copyright?) law"? Could you please provide a citation of where I said that?
See, I would be happy to discuss your actual arguments, but I won't even try if you insist on strawmanning my position.
Also, if you want this discussion to go anywhere, I expect that you refrain from derailing it by insisting on discussing form over content. If you understand an analogy, I expect you to discuss based on what you understood, instead of starting a discussion on how I should have expressed my argument to make you like its form better. I write what I write in order to be understood. Analogies aren't perfect, that's what makes them analogies. The point of an analogy is to show commonalities, despite all differences. If you understand an analogy, it has served its purpose, and any argument as to how I should have expressed myself instead therefore is completely pointless and only serves to derail the discussion. If you actually don't understand what I mean to say, ask, and I'll be happy to try and explain. If you disagree with the content, explain why you disagree with the content.